Power is an agreement

This seems oddly self evident to me, but apparently not to other people.

A lot of people like to assume that power is an illusion, that it does not exist, and in a manner of speaking it does not since it doesn't exist in the physical world. Power is a social construct that exists purely within the mind.

If you consider power in the simplest terms, it is an agreement that is either explicit, implicit, or coerced.



Explicit power is the most common. It is when you vote. It is when you sign on the bottom line. It is when you shake hands. It is external and highly evident.

Implicit power is the next most common. It is not directly expressed. It is the unspoken norms of the community. It is the social contract that people agree to despite never having signed or voted on themselves. When the Constitution was signed and ratified over 200 hundred years ago, it was an explicit agreement, but the people who follow it today are following it implicitly since they never voted on it. The power of money and fame are also implicit.

Coerced power is the least common but the most memorable. It is using force or manipulation. It is the dictator who rules with an iron fist. It is the police who make you follow the laws under the threat of a gun. It is the father who spanks his unruly child.

But the reality of all power is that people have to consent to it. It is an agreement whether it is explicit, implicit, or coerced. If I don't follow laws that people explicitly voted on. I could choose instead to make those people use coercive power and throw me in jail. I also don't have to give them the benefit of the coercive power. I can choose to refuse to eat, not unlike how many civil rights leaders have chosen to stand against such coercive power in the past. I don't have to follow the implicit expectations of people. I can choose to violate them and accept the social rejection that follows as they try to coerce me to conform. I can even form a subculture of nonconformists in protest of that particular coercive power. And if they decide to just jump right to coercive power and enslave me, then I can force their hand into killing me and die as a matyr to my cause.

So in essence, power is an agreement. Every man who has ever been enslaved to another man has chosen to be, because he has always had the freedom to choose death over that option. He agrees to be enslaved because he values his life more than his freedom.

Of course, there are cases where coercive power has no recourse. That is specifically the cases of murder and rape/molestation. That is why those are the greatest taboos in any society.

Even war is an agreement, where both societies are implicitly agreeing that while at war, any death that one side causes the other is not a murder. If one of the sides does not acknowledge that it is at war then any act from the aggressor will be seen as an act of murder or terror.

The Jews in the Holocaust often chose slavery over death. They would often work themselves to death trying to stay alive. They were often murdered by a side that saw itself as at war with them.

The point is that people only have power over you to the extent that you allow them. You can always choose to force their hand and make them use coercive power. That is how every civil rights movement has made grounds. A group of people had enough of being oppressed by explicit and implicit power so they stood their ground and refused to acknowledge the power of their oppressors. They said that they would sooner be beaten, imprisoned, or even killed than continue to be oppressed. That forced the other side to use coercive measures such as violence. In time, the society was forced to change because it could not condone such acts.

Today I could reject the Constitution, the laws of my community, the norms of my community, the value of money, the value of position or fame, etc. and I would most likely end up in prison or dead, but I do not have to agree to give anyone or anything, anymore power than I am willing to. Even the power you give ideas is yours, and yours alone. There is a reason the first four letters of "culture" are "cult".

 

It is a choice. You can always choose to fight, even when your country is occupied. Just look at Iraq. Look at suicide bombers.

I only said power is an agreement, not that it is a fair agreement or that the terms of the agreement are necessarily fair. War is generally coercive power. Coercive power does not usually create fair agreements. Once one party decides to use coercive power, then the choices for the other party are quite limited. They are usually to fight, to surrender, or to die.

 

In social work there is a question which often appears on exams...

"What group has the lowest status in society?"

The answer is children. Children can't vote. They can't organize lobbies. They can't really protest.

Children often do not have the mental abilities to fight for the freedoms they do deserve. They often have to rely on others to advocate for them.

However, they still live within an agreement. As long as children behave, their parents will provide for them. If a child misbehaves is it uncommon for a parent to deny them desert? Does not an angry parent sometimes make the argument, "As long as you live under my roof you abide by my rules"? Does not an furious parent sometimes yell, "I made you and I can umake you"? A child can still choose to misbehave even with those threats and no awareness that power is an agreement.

Advocates for children pushed for protections so that a parent can't abuse, neglect, or abandon their child. As such, parents have an implicit agreement with society to act as responsible parents.

 

I've only provided a single definition for power. There are others.

Sociological definition...

Power: the control of resources and outcomes

Psychological definition...

Power: the ability to influence attitudes

And there are countless philosophical definitions. For the sake of this thread, I defined it as an agreement, but you are welcome to argue opposing definitions.

Since we are dealing with "choice" you could also take the stance there is ultimately no free will. If there is no free will, then power is only consequential to the sequence of events.

 

I'm not saying people can deny being affected. You can kill me if you want.

 

Yes. Although it is not a very good option.